|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 08/11/2004 : 12:24:49
|
I do not think the US should be giving Israel anything like the virtually unconditional support it has been. Yet there is no candidate I can vote for to champion my point of view. Sure, I can vote Green or Libertarian or whatever, but that's a wasted vote. Indeed, I oppose much of the Bush Admin's policy and because our elections are all or nothing, if I don't vote for Kerry, then it might as well be a vote for Bush. This is not a very democratic system. It's more like a system designed for 2 parties, black or white points of view, with me or against me philosophies, all of which are fundamentally in error. Politics, life, government, policy are all more complicated than either/or. This frustrates me to no end, especially this year. 
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 14:58:58 [Permalink]
|
A bummer for certain.
There is a way to change it, but it is bloody and not reccommended. And anyway, the change would most likely be for the worse. A fucking religi-whacko or fellow-traveler might take over, vote or no vote.
For now, I'd say that we must show the scoundrel Bush the door and work it out from there.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 15:33:57 [Permalink]
|
| Don't forget, the Bushies would like you to think Kerry is Bush lite. But in reality Kerry differs 180 degrees in his positions on the environment, religion in government, HIV prevention not having an abstinence only requirement, how to get along with our world neighbors, and more. It isn't just about Iraq or Israel. It's about having a religious fundamentalist and a bunch of anti-commie holdovers in the White House right now. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/11/2004 15:34:55 |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 16:26:12 [Permalink]
|
Actually, the "Bushies" are trying their best to portray Kerry as a liberal. But the truth is that Kerry holds many policy positions that are very similar to Bush's, particularly on the topic of Israel. I'd even go so far to say that MOST of his major positions are similar.
And, chaloobi, as Ricky pointed out, merely complaining about it doesn't do anything. You dislike either the Democratic or Republican candidate but refuse to vote for any other candidate because you refuse to "waste" it.
I'm not trying to be harsh, here, but if you want an electoral solution to your dillemma but refuse to even look for one, who do you have to blame but yourself?
No vote is ever wasted if you bother cast it.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 16:27:10 [Permalink]
|
| There are a lot of things that piss me off about America as well, your reason being one of them, but in all actuality, it's not the government that we should be pissed off at, it's the American population. If Americans weren't so brainwashed in this low-standardized routine, we wouldn't be caught in this terrible mess. I guess what we ought to do to start off with is funding companies that will provide the services the "independent-thinkers" want and boycotting the rest. For example, MTV. Enough said? In replacement of MTV, we can focus our attentions on other forms of entertainment, specifically, I've chosen "television-abstinence" but this isn't a plan designed for everyone, although personally I think it ought to be. Instead, spend money on the satellite channels that are worth watching (if you insist on watching). Boycott large record labels and listen to independent music. Buy locally, instead of going to Wal-Mart, go to a Mom and Pop store (sure, the selection is more limited, the prices may be higher, but none the less, it makes a difference in the end). There are many different ways to seek alternatives to every aspect of the American lifestyle (McDonald's vs. local restaurant). I see this as a trend that would work upward to our political arenas. Since our politics are funded by the super-giant corporations and industries, if a large part of the population sway more towards the alternatives, the corporations and industries will offer more alternatives, to sell. They're just doing business. And if the corporations offer alternatives, politics will offer alternatives. If we have more choices in a supermarket and on the radio and television, we will have more choices on the voting ballots. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 01:11:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
Actually, the "Bushies" are trying their best to portray Kerry as a liberal. But the truth is that Kerry holds many policy positions that are very similar to Bush's, particularly on the topic of Israel. I'd even go so far to say that MOST of his major positions are similar.
.....
Oh ya sure. Guess that fundamentalism stuff of Bush's isn't major.
I for one, do not think Bush and Kerry are the least bit similar but I do think the Republican spin says that they are. Out of one side of the Republican mouth comes Kerry is the 'most liberal' though when pressed they can't really pin down a source. Out of the other side of the Republican mouth comes Kerry agrees with everything Bush is doing.
Bush makes no secret of his radical fundamentalist views. I for one don't want abortion politics interfering with the US funding of AIDS prevention programs. I don't want health care workers to be restricted in what they can SAY to patients which is what the politics of federal dollars is currently causing. I'd like to see stem cell research removed from the nonsensical restrictions of treating single cells as if they were babies. I'd like to see Ashcroft out of office. I don't want a replacement Supreme Court Judge appointed by Bush. I don't want to see us go to war with the next country like Iran because there are nothing but hawks in the cabinet. And so on and so on.... |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/12/2004 01:27:40 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 02:34:11 [Permalink]
|
We all want a candidate who walks on water, but friends, I hate to break this to you -- it ain't gonna happen, ever. Kerry, for all of his political skills, positions on the issues, and laudable service record is not some sort of mortal Second-Coming. And Bush is not Lucifer in a $1,000 suit, although I often think he's applying for the gig.
When and if elected, and if I were a believer, I'd pray for it, Kerry will come up with all sorts of shit that I won't like, as did Clinton. As would anybody. That's the way the world works. Like it or not, it's always the least of the evils.
Did I just compare Bush to Lucifer? I did, didn't I? 'Lucifer' means Light, so it was a mistake on my part. Sorry 'bout that.
If what I've read is correct, Bush recieves his inspirations from God. I would like to remind that hearing disembodied voices is never a good sign.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 05:47:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Yes, it pisses me off too, but just saying it pisses you off doesn't change much. Offering a solution to the problem would be a bit better, but its basically a two company monopoly here, I see no way out of it.
How about this: First, make the Electoral College a proportional system by state - instead of all or nothing, award the votes based on proportion of the state's popular vote won. Then, if no candidate gets a clear majority of the elctoral votes, then hold a runnoff election. For example, lets say in November you get this result of proportionally allocated electoral votes:
Bush---46%
Kerry--45%
Nader--6%
Other--3%
Then you schedule a run-off election between the top two of the first election. This way you don't marginalize a third party candidate. Unfortunately, those in power now have every reason to try and marginalize an attempted 3rd party.
Anyone here think this is a bad idea? If so, I'd like to hear details of the problem.
|
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 08/12/2004 06:01:13 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 05:49:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
A bummer for certain.
There is a way to change it, but it is bloody and not reccommended. And anyway, the change would most likely be for the worse. A fucking religi-whacko or fellow-traveler might take over, vote or no vote.
For now, I'd say that we must show the scoundrel Bush the door and work it out from there.
Good lord, I hope you're wrong about that. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 05:50:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
Actually, the "Bushies" are trying their best to portray Kerry as a liberal. But the truth is that Kerry holds many policy positions that are very similar to Bush's, particularly on the topic of Israel. <snip>
I was prompted to make this post after I heard Kerry speak his policy on Israel. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 08/12/2004 06:02:07 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 05:56:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
<snip>
And, chaloobi, as Ricky pointed out, merely complaining about it doesn't do anything. You dislike either the Democratic or Republican candidate but refuse to vote for any other candidate because you refuse to "waste" it.
I'm not trying to be harsh, here, but if you want an electoral solution to your dillemma but refuse to even look for one, who do you have to blame but yourself?
No vote is ever wasted if you bother cast it.
I disagree. The fact is, if I vote Libertarian or Green or God knows whate else, I'll be helping the Devil himself stay in office. It indeed is not a WASTED vote, it's a vote for BUSH! And it is most important to me to get Bush OUT. And thus I am forced to vote for Kerry, who has a policy on Israel that sticks in my craw.
You say be an idealist and vote your conscience, but that's just what the Bush Administration wants - indeed its why the Republican Party conducted a petition drive in Michigan to get NADER on the ballot! To vote that way is foolish. I MUST vote the lesser of two evils or the greater evil is guaranteed to win. That's how we got GW to begin with! 
EDIT: BTW - I didn't make this thread merely to complain. I wanted to start a discussion and hear what this community thinks on the topic. Now I posted a suggested solution above, so let's hear some discussion on it.  |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 08/12/2004 06:03:30 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 07:08:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
<snip>
And, chaloobi, as Ricky pointed out, merely complaining about it doesn't do anything. You dislike either the Democratic or Republican candidate but refuse to vote for any other candidate because you refuse to "waste" it.
I'm not trying to be harsh, here, but if you want an electoral solution to your dillemma but refuse to even look for one, who do you have to blame but yourself?
No vote is ever wasted if you bother cast it.
I disagree. The fact is, if I vote Libertarian or Green or God knows whate else, I'll be helping the Devil himself stay in office. It indeed is not a WASTED vote, it's a vote for BUSH! And it is most important to me to get Bush OUT. And thus I am forced to vote for Kerry, who has a policy on Israel that sticks in my craw.
You say be an idealist and vote your conscience, but that's just what the Bush Administration wants - indeed its why the Republican Party conducted a petition drive in Michigan to get NADER on the ballot! To vote that way is foolish. I MUST vote the lesser of two evils or the greater evil is guaranteed to win. That's how we got GW to begin with!
EDIT: BTW - I didn't make this thread merely to complain. I wanted to start a discussion and hear what this community thinks on the topic. Now I posted a suggested solution above, so let's hear some discussion on it.
OK. Here's a bit of commentary with some facts interspersed.
(gets on soapbox)
While I would love to see Bush in front of an international tribunal, the oft repeated charge of "a vote for <insert party here> is a vote for the Republicans" is a crock of shit. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and Reform Party memebers mostly contain disgruntled Republicans. Greens and other parties mostly contian disgruntled Democrats. The question isn't why do the vote against their party but why do they vote for a third party. Some people vote for candidates who they believe in. Platforms they trust and agree with.
Quite frankly, candidates have to earn every vote they get. The two major political parties have fostered an environment of distrust and fear in order to not only demonize their opponents, but also stiffle third parties. The idea of a vote for a third party is a vote for the opposing party dovetails nicely into controlling sheep people.
Some states have a system in place whereby electoral votes are split based on the percentage of the popular vote. Most have a winner takes all method. The means by which electoral votes are divvied up is determined by each state. Also, although rare, electors can change their minds before casting their votes to being in opposition to what they pledged.
(steps off soapbox) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 08/12/2004 07:08:36 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 07:22:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
OK. Here's a bit of commentary with some facts interspersed.
(gets on soapbox)
While I would love to see Bush in front of an international tribunal, the oft repeated charge of "a vote for <insert party here> is a vote for the Republicans" is a crock of shit. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and Reform Party memebers mostly contain disgruntled Republicans. Greens and other parties mostly contian disgruntled Democrats. The question isn't why do the vote against their party but why do they vote for a third party. Some people vote for candidates who they believe in. Platforms they trust and agree with.
Quite frankly, candidates have to earn every vote they get. The two major political parties have fostered an environment of distrust and fear in order to not only demonize their opponents, but also stiffle third parties. The idea of a vote for a third party is a vote for the opposing party dovetails nicely into controlling sheep people.
Some states have a system in place whereby electoral votes are split based on the percentage of the popular vote. Most have a winner takes all method. The means by which electoral votes are divvied up is determined by each state. Also, although rare, electors can change their minds before casting their votes to being in opposition to what they pledged.
(steps off soapbox)
Val - I appreciate your idealism, but you are wrong.
What keeps this country a 2 party system is the all-or-nothing allocation of electoral votes at the state level combined with the winner takes it all, regardless if they have a majority or not, at the national level. Above I suggested a fix for this and I'd love for everyone to comment on it. I'm sure there's a problem in it somewhere that I can't see.
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 08:01:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
OK. Here's a bit of commentary with some facts interspersed.
(gets on soapbox)
While I would love to see Bush in front of an international tribunal, the oft repeated charge of "a vote for <insert party here> is a vote for the Republicans" is a crock of shit. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and Reform Party memebers mostly contain disgruntled Republicans. Greens and other parties mostly contian disgruntled Democrats. The question isn't why do the vote against their party but why do they vote for a third party. Some people vote for candidates who they believe in. Platforms they trust and agree with.
Quite frankly, candidates have to earn every vote they get. The two major political parties have fostered an environment of distrust and fear in order to not only demonize their opponents, but also stiffle third parties. The idea of a vote for a third party is a vote for the opposing party dovetails nicely into controlling sheep people.
Some states have a system in place whereby electoral votes are split based on the percentage of the popular vote. Most have a winner takes all method. The means by which electoral votes are divvied up is determined by each state. Also, although rare, electors can change their minds before casting their votes to being in opposition to what they pledged.
(steps off soapbox)
Val - I appreciate your idealism, but you are wrong.
What keeps this country a 2 party system is the all-or-nothing allocation of electoral votes at the state level combined with the winner takes it all, regardless if they have a majority or not, at the national level. Above I suggested a fix for this and I'd love for everyone to comment on it. I'm sure there's a problem in it somewhere that I can't see.
Maine and Nebraska does not have a winner takes all method of divvying electoral votes. They have a district system. Under this system, two electors are awarded to the winner of the statewide popular vote, and the remaining electors are awarded to the popular vote winner in each of the state's congressional districts. I recognize that the "percentage of popular vote" assertation I made was incorrect. It is, however, not winner takes all.
Now for the flaw in your proposal that I can see. By splitting the electoral votes by percentage of popular vote, it reduces it to a merely popular vote. The flaw the founding fathers saw with this and the reason for the electoral college is that it marginalizes small states. Why would candidates care about small states when they could carry all the large ones?
I'm not convinced that the system is broke. Very few Presidents have been elected without the popular vote.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
